Beware of the (experts!) I witnessed an incident last weekend and commented on it in the incidents thread Along with two other jumpers who saw it firsthand. Unfortunately there was also a (newspaper) article which claimed to quote a highly experienced and respected jumper. Which led more experienced jumpers to make comments such as. I’ll believe what Dan said over a novice etc. What happened was that during a wing suit big way (around 100 including video) two jumpers had a collision right after deployment. One cut away and deployed their reserve right away. While the other one fell straight down under a collapsed canopy which was entangled with the cut away canopy. Until finally at an extremely low altitude they managed to cut away and get an open reserve at approximately 100 to 200 feet. The newspaper article claimed that the jumper had a good canopy above their head. But that the deflated canopy was wrapped around their body. Streamering behind them like a banner. And here’s the scary part. It then said that their choices were to try and land like that. Or jettison their parachute and use the emergency chute! I did not see the collision. Nor its immediate aftermath. So thought maybe I was confused as to what I had seen her streamering. Was it her canopy? Or had she cut away by the time I saw her and was still entangled with his? Or was his canopy entangled with hers? But even as a novice realized that the idea of cutting away a good canopy with a deflated cut away canopy wrapped around your body. And then going back into freefall while still wrapped and trying to deploy your reserve through the mess. Just so you could (hopefully) get a clean deployment. And once again have a good canopy above your head. While still wrapped in another. At a much lower altitude. With nothing left to put out. Was an extremely bad idea! So I said so. Several times. But not one single (experienced) jumper said that they agreed with that. Instead I was told why someone might do such a thing. Disorientated etc. I also said that as I watched her get lower and lower my thoughts changed from her needing to cut away. To her needing to just get her reserve out. At which point more (experts) explained to me that the idea of not cutting away below 1000 feet was basically an aff minamum for amateurs such as myself. Basically what it came down to was that because a newspaper article claimed to quote such an experienced jumper. I was not qualified to comment. And what me and two others claimed to have seen was suspect. Even though not one single jumper claimed to have seen anything else! Well here’s a video of the incident. You can watch it for yourself. And ask yourself if you think fighting a malfunction that long without deploying your reserve is a good idea? Yes she did get lucky and get an open reserve before impact. But not by much! And she did do one hell of a job of fighting her way out of a nightmare situation and getting her reserve out. But she did not get control of her canopy before landing. And is now in a coma with a severe brain injury. So please THINK for yourself. Do you think cutting away a good canopy while your body is wrapped with a deflated cut away is a good idea? Because if you listen to (the experts) in this sport you can easily kill yourself! Yes novices should ask questions of more experienced jumpers and take advice from them. But that does not mean you should not think for yourself! Because you are the one who will die if you listen to the wrong EXPERT! So here’s my non expert advice.

Do not cut away a good canopy in any emergency. Especially if you are wrapped with another!

Do not fight a malfunction until impact without at least trying to deploy your reserve. Set a hard deck and get a reserve out at that point!

Do not believe what you read in the damn newspaper. No matter how experienced someone is which it (claims) to qoute.

You can take that advice or ignore it. But please think think think for yourself about what you would do in various emergencies now before they happen. And don’t (just rely) on what (the experts) say! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nVF1IvKqLc

I think most people's point was that they couldn't understand your point. Honestly I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Can you sum it up in a single bullet point?

You do seem to continue to be critical of the expert opinion that was given to the papers but you continue to refuse to talk directly to that person. I don't understand why you have a public beef over something but won't contact that person directly to discus you issue.

If you are trying to say "don't trust a single opinion" then I would agree, it is always good to get input from multiple qualified individuals. I find talking with them directly rather than posting a one sided forum thread works better.

Want bullet points? I'll state them once again as i just did at the end of this post. Do not cut away a good canopy in any emergency. Especially if you are wrapped with another one!

Do not fight a malfunction until impact. Without at least trying to get a reserve out!

Now if you still can not understand that? Then i do not know what more to say?

As for contacting Dan directly? I'll (once again) explain that i do not feel any need to do so. Because unlike so many. I do not believe that just because a (newspaper article) claims that he said something. That he actually did. Thereforth i have no dispute with what (he said) And have a real hard time understanding how so many can take what a newspaper article (claims) he said as fact.

Ok you are apsolutly right!!!!! I should have said without at least trying to get a reserve out. Which is what i said earlier. And have edited my second post to say. You should NEVER give up! But you should attempt to deploy your reserve if you are to low to safely cuy away a malfunction. And keep fighting!!!!

Want bullet points? I'll state them once again as i just did at the end of this post. Do not cut away a good canopy in any emergency. Especially if you are wrapped with another one!

Do not fight a malfunction until impact. Without at least trying to get a reserve out!

Now if you still can not understand that? Then i do not know what more to say?

As for contacting Dan directly? I'll (once again) explain that i do not feel any need to do so. Because unlike so many. I do not believe that just because a (newspaper article) claims that he said something. That he actually did. Thereforth i have no dispute with what (he said) And have a real hard time understanding how so many can take what a newspaper article (claims) he said as fact.

Where does anyone say in writing that anyone recommend to cutaway the funtional main? I can see an article that states what happened but I can't find anywhere the advice you are being critical about. Can you post a link please?

Sorry but my computer skills suck! I have tried several times to do a direct link. As well as copy and paste the entire article. But every time i highlight it and right click. The highlight goes away. But here is the section which i say is bullshit. If you want to read the entire article? It's on page one about half way down with a link. posted by padraigbrowne.

But roughly five seconds after opening their chutes, Sinitsina and a male skydiver collided, said Dan Brodsky-Chenfeld, manager of Perris Valley Skydiving.

“He is fine. He says (Sinitsina’s) foot brushed his head,” Brodsky-Chenfeld said. “That (initially) was the extent of it.”

But the parachute of the male skydiver, whose name has not been released, wrapped around Sinitsina’s body. So the male jumper jettisoned his deflated chute and landed safely beneath his emergency chute.

Sinitsina then faced a choice: She could land her fully inflated parachute, towing her companion’s deflated chute as if it were a banner, or she could jettison her main parachute and use her emergency chute.

Notice the last paragraph? It says nothing about trying to clear the wrap. Just try and land like that? Or cut away?

And what i dispute is THE ARTICLE. NOT DAN becasue it's a newspaper article. So i have no idea what he actually said. Nor do i care. I think that's extremely bad advice!

Sorry but my computer skills suck! I have tried several times to do a direct link. As well as copy and paste the entire article. But every time i highlight it and right click. The highlight goes away. But here is the section which i say is bullshit. If you want to read the entire article? It's on page one about half way down with a link. posted by padraigbrowne.

But roughly five seconds after opening their chutes, Sinitsina and a male skydiver collided, said Dan Brodsky-Chenfeld, manager of Perris Valley Skydiving.

“He is fine. He says (Sinitsina’s) foot brushed his head,” Brodsky-Chenfeld said. “That (initially) was the extent of it.”

But the parachute of the male skydiver, whose name has not been released, wrapped around Sinitsina’s body. So the male jumper jettisoned his deflated chute and landed safely beneath his emergency chute.

Sinitsina then faced a choice: She could land her fully inflated parachute, towing her companion’s deflated chute as if it were a banner, or she could jettison her main parachute and use her emergency chute.

Notice the last paragraph? It says nothing about trying to clear the wrap. Just try and land like that? Or cut away?

And what i dispute is THE ARTICLE. NOT DAN becasue it's a newspaper article. So i have no idea what he actually said. Nor do i care. I think that's extremely bad advice!

That looks like an article written for the general population (read wuffos) not advice to skydivers.

Is the burr up your a$$ that nobody agreed with you in writing that there are more than just those two options in that situation? Are you saying that she should not have cut away and should have deployed her reserve to get more nylon over her head? At the speed she was decending in that video are you suggesting she should have used her time trying to clear the wrap?

Exactly! What has me bothered is the number of experienced jumpers who seem to think that because i said it was bullshit. That i am questioning the wisdom of Dan. It appears that because it has his name attached to it that many feel it is beyond reproach. And that kind of thinking is dangerious!

What has me annoyed is the number of people who seem to think my saying the article was wrong. Is a direct challenge to the wisdom of Dan. And no i do not think she should have wasted any more time trying to clear it! I also said she did not have a good canopy above her that she had any chance of landing. And that i thought she should have deployed her reserve sooner. Even though she did beat the odds and get it out before impact. And that in the situation described (in the article)chopping would be a bad choice. If you want to say like others that she is such an expert that she did not need to deploy a reserve sooner? Then that's fine. I won't argue the point. But i hope i would do so? But i will never believe that chopping a good canopy while in a wrap is a good choice.

Sorry that you're confused. but i think it's pretty straight forward. Hopefully others will be able to figure out that just because a newspaper article claims to qoute someone? It is not good advice. And that in saying so is in no way an attack upon the person it claims to qoute. No matter how experienced they are!

Nor should they just cut away a good canopy while wrapped with a deflated cut away.

I'm not at all sure it would be the correct thing to do, but I believe I would have cut away as the jumper in the video did. I say this because I have not had to use my reserve yet and think I would cutaway as that is how I have practiced my EPs over and over. Sort of a react to the high rate of decent on "autopilot" thing if you will.

It will (with any luck) be interesting to hear the thoughts of the jumper involved after some recovery time.

My question to the more experienced jumpers would be.... Now that you've had time to think about it would you cut away and deploy reserve or just deploy the reserve and why?

But not one single (experienced) jumper said that they agreed with that.

That is not correct. EPs were mentioned more than once.

In reply to:

I also said that as I watched her get lower and lower....

If you saw all that, why then are your even considering the article in the paper?

In reply to:

Basically what it came down to was that because a newspaper article claimed to quote such an experienced jumper. I was not qualified to comment.

I think you gor all defensive and took things the wrong way.

In reply to:

And what me and two others claimed to have seen was suspect.

Of course. You read the comments about how dependable "eye witnesses" can be. Add in your level of experience with these things and there ya go.

In reply to:

So please THINK for yourself. Do you think cutting away a good canopy while your body is wrapped with a deflated cut away is a good idea?

Why would you need to ask? Know what your EPs are for wraps and entanglements...you do know the difference, yes?

In reply to:

Because if you listen to (the experts) in this sport you can easily kill yourself!

Sad that you would generalize like that. You are waaay off base there.

vYes novices should ask questions of more experienced jumpers and take advice from them. But that does not mean you should not think for yourself! Agreed. It's your job to learn as much as you can as quckly as you can so that you can make intelligent decisions for yourself.

In reply to:

So here’s my non expert advice.

Do not cut away a good canopy in any emergency.

See? this is why advice from young jumpers comes automatically with a large dose of suspicion. You are wrong.

BTW...Ii couldn't tell shit for sure from the video. Will you tell what actually the video was showing with respect to what canopies were out and when?

The only reason i had any interest in the article was becasue it stated that she had a good canopy. Which is not what i saw. But as i said i did not see the collision. Just her falling straight down with nothing but crap above her. So i asked if what i saw streamering above her may have been his canopy after she cut away? And then asked why would you chop a good canopy if wrapped? And stated that did not make any sense. At which point i was told that the writer was a jumper with 30 plus years. And thousands of jumps. And that the article was accurate and factual. Which the video clearly shows it wasn't. But what bothered me was comments such as. I'll believe what Dan says over a novice etc. Based on nothing more then a newspaper article. And there were two other eyewitnesses who reported seeing exactly what i did as well. But the important part is that people with thousands of jumps seemed to just except the article as fact. And make statements such as. I'll believe what Dan says over a novice. I hope no newby reads that and believes it's true. And that if a newspaper article claims to qoute him. But a novice disputes the article. Then the article must be correct. Becasue people with thousands of jumps said so. I might not be an expert. But i know hero worship when i see it. And how dangerious it is. And have gotten one pm from another eyewitness agreeing with my assecment. Who does not want to post and take the public bashing. And that's sad!

Like i said think for your self and make up your own mind. I was taught not to cut away below 1000 feet. And will stick with that. I've watched two experienced jumpers die so far in emergencies that i believe to have been salvagble. One cut away a mal and never pulled his reserve. The other made a downwind hook turn in 20 plus mph winds to avaoid a tree landing. (below 200 feet) I do realize that it is possible to cut away and survive lower then 1000 feet. So as i said i wont argue that point. But i do believe she was out of time. And got extreamly lucky. But also am sure her skill level made a world of difference! Even so by going that low she played the odds as there was no quarantee she would cut away and get a reserve out in time. Just like deploying a reserve while still with a malfunction is playing the odds. But at my skill level. I want to try and remember to pull silver at 1000 if i'm still falling like that? Not to get more material out as previously asked. But to (hopefully) get an open canopy above my head. And i realize that might not happen. But i also realize you might not clear the malfunction if that's all you try and do.

By the way i did see your post about EPs for wraps/entanglements. But it did not state what they were. And am honestly curiouse as to when you would chop a (good) canopy? Meaning there are no rips or tears. Nothing entangled with it etc. I can imagine doind so if a kamikize pilot is trying to fly his aircraft into you. Or if you were in a severe updraft like the ballon pilot in Georgia who got sucked way up and died. But seriously can not think of any other time to just chop a good canopy? This is not a bash but honest curiosity. As you are right. That statement was a generalzation. Based on common skydiving malfunctions though.

Sorry popsjumper. I forgot to answer your question as to what she had out. And all i can make there is an educated guess based on what i saw. As i was to for away to really make out detail. But i did see another cut away canopy in her general proximaty. But at a higher alltitude. Which you can hear people discussing in the video. So i can only assume that was his as she still had a canopy above her. Which is why the she had a good canopy above her statement confused me. Especially after i was told the writer was a jumper with thousands of jumps. And that it was an accurate and factual story. And she also appeared to be struggeleling. So i can only guess that the collision must have caused her canopy to wrap up or entangle with itself somehow. With perhaps lines snagged on her somewhere? Sorry if the terminolagy is wrong! But the point is it was a big ball of shit. I know eyewitness acounts are often wrong. And i don't have a lot of jump experience. But i do have experience in other stress enviroments. And am positive of what i saw.

We generally see the newspapers and tv stations report something along "plummeted to their death" or "parachute failed to open". I can't remember a single news account getting an incident reported anywhere near accurate in details. Ever.

Just accept the fact that reporters are wuffos. With deadlines to meet, stories to sell.